2000 Canliidocs 144 Given Rise to Confusion and to Controversy, Niveau Provincial

458 ALBERTA LAW REVIEW VOL. 38(2) 2000 "STILL CRAZY AFTER ALL THESE YEARS": SECTION 88 OF THE INDIAN ACT AT FIFTY KERRY WILKINS• Section 88 of the Indian Act, which provides, as a La clause 88 de la Loi sur les lndiens qui regil, en matter of federal law, for the application of much tant que JoiJederale, I 'application de nombreuses provincial law to Indiaru, is fifty years old this loi.s provinciales sur /es Indiens a cinquante ans year: an apt time to review what we know of its cette annee. Le moment est done tout indique pour origins and to reflect on the impact it has had on revoir ce que nous connaissons de ses origines et de the Canadian law of Aboriginal peoples. This nous pencher sur ses retombees sur le droit article attempts just such an assessment. canadien des Autochtones. Cet article se veut une As it turns out, we know very little about the tel/e evaluation. · reasoru for s. 88 's enactment; when introduced, it II s 'mere que nous savons peu de choses sur attracted almost no scrutiny from the public, in /'adoption de cette clause. Lorsqu 'elle a ete Parliament, or even at Cabinet. In the years since, presentee, elle n 'a pas vraiment attire /'examen du we have paid dearly for that inattention. By public, du parlement ou mime du cabinet. Depui.s, happenstance, it has managed to Jul.fill its original nous avons paye cher pour celle inattention. Elle a, mandate to protect Aboriginal peoples' treaty rights par hasard, reussi a remp/ir son mandat original de from the impact of standards enacted provincially. proteger /es droils issus des trailes des peuples In almost every other respect, however, s. 88 has autochtones de / 'effet des /ois normales adoptees au 2000 CanLIIDocs 144 given rise to confusion and to controversy, niveau provincial. Cependant, dans presque tous /es frustrating courts' efforts to apply it coherently, autres cas, la clause 88 a occasionne de la thwarting Aboriginal peoples' (and others J confusion et de la controverse, a frustre /es efforts attempts to tell what mairutream law prescribes, des tribunaux a / 'appliquer de fa~on coherente, and complicating otherwise routine tasks of contrevenant /es essais des peuples autochtones (et enforcement and administration. It is, for these des autres) a dire ce que le droit conventionnel reasons, a provision overdue for reconsideration. regit et comp/iquant autrement /es tiiches routinieres d'application et d'administration. Pour ces raisons, sa reevaluation s 'impose done. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION . 459 II. SECTION 88'S LEGISLATIVE HISTORY ..................... 460 III. How PROVINCIAL LA ws APPLY: WHAT SECTION 88 INCLUDES . 465 IV. WHAT SECTION 88 EXCLUDES . • . • . 4 72 A. "SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF ANY TREATY ... " .........•.• 472 B. " ... AND ANY OTHER ACT OF THE PARLIAMENT OF CANADA, ... " . 4 77 C. " ... ALL LAWS OF GENERAL APPLICATION IN FORCE IN ANY PROVINCE ... " ........................ 478 Of the Ontario bar. Special thanks to Kent McNeil, Eileen Hipfner, and an anonymous referee at the Alberta law Review for their close reading of, and useful comments on, an earlier draft of this work; to John Leslie and his staff at DIAND's Claims and Historical Research Centre for giving me access to DJAND tiles and documents and for a helpful introduction to the task of research at the National Archives, and to Patrick Macklem and Tim McCabe for helping improve my thinking in formative early conversations about these difficult issues. Thanks finally to Kent and to John for pre-publication access to their own recent, related work. SECTION 88 OF THE INDIAN ACT AT FIFTY 459 D. " ... ARE APPLICABLE TO AND IN RESPECT OF INDIANS IN THE PROVINCE... " ....................... 482 E. " ... EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH LAWS ARE INCONSISTENTWITH THIS ACT OR ANY ORDER, RULE, REGULATION OR BY-LAW MADE THEREUNDER,... " ........ 497 F. " ... AND EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH LAWS MAKE PROVISIONFOR ANY MATIER FOR WHICH PROVISIONIS MADE BY OR UNDER THIS ACT." 497 V. CONCLUSION 501 I. INTRODUCTION Anyone seriously engaged in practicing the Canadian law of Aboriginal peoples is bound to encounter before very long s. 88 of the Indian Act. 1 Section 88 provides expressly, as a matter of federal law, for the application of a great deal of provincial law to Indians. It reads as follows: Subject to the tenns of any treaty and any other Act of the Parliament of Canada, all laws of general 2000 CanLIIDocs 144 application from time to time in force in any province are applicable to and in respect of Indians in the province, except to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with this Act or any order, rule, regulation or by-law made thereunder, and except to the extent that such laws make provision for any matter for which provision is made by or under this Act. It was fifty years ago that s. 88 made its public debut as s. 87 of Bill 267, An Act Respecting Indians. 2 On 7 June 1950, Walter Harris, Canada's Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, introduced Bill 267 in the House of Commons. The bill as a whole gave rise to concerted public and parliamentary opposition, partly on various substantive grounds and partly because of widespread resistance to enactment of such a sweeping revision of federal Indian law - the first such revision in seventy years - without having given Indian leaders a meaningful opportunity to consider and comment on it.3 As a result, the government withdrew it before it proceeded to second reading. 4 On 27 February 1951, however, Harris introduced Bill 79, a revised version of he earlier Indian bill. 5 (The next day, he convened a conference of selected Indian leaders from across the country to review in detail the new bill's provisions.)6 The new bill R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5 [hereinafter Indian Act]. 2d Sess., 21st Part., I 950 [hereinafter Bill 267). See House of Commons Debates (7 June 1950) at 3334. See ibid at 3938-45; 3968-77 (21 June 1950). John Diefenbaker, as it happens, was one of the bill's harshest critics on both of these grounds. See ibid. at 2205 (5 May 1950), 3331-32 (7 June 1950), 3973-76 (21 June 1950). For discussion of the public controversy over the bill, see J.F. Leslie, Assimilation, Integration or Termination? The Development of Canadian Indian Policy, /943-1963 (Ph.D., Carleton University 1999) [unpublished] at 212-15. House of Commons Debates (21 June 1950) at 3984. Bill 79, An Act Respecting Indians, 4th Sess., 21st Part., 1951 [hereinafter Bill 79). For the official account of the proceedings of that conference, see "A Summary of the Proceedings of a Conference with Representative Indians Held in Ottawa, February 28-March 3, 195 I" in House of Commons Debates (16 March 1951) at 1364-67 [hereinafter Indian Conference Report]. Compare Leslie, supra note 3 at 221-28. 460 ALBERTA LAW REVIEW VOL. 38(2) 2000 differed in several important respects from Bill 2677 but did preserve s. 87 intact. Bill 79, with some amendments, received initial Commons approval on 17 May 1951 and Royal Assent on June 21 of that year. 8 It is, in most respects, the Indian Act we still have today. 9 Ever since, for the past half century, s. 8810 has been with us, unamended. This anniversary offers occasion for a jubilee assessment of its provenance, its meaning, and its impact. As I hope to demonstrate here, few, if any, statutory provisions in force throughout these years have done quite so much to complicate or to confuse Canadian law. II. SECTION 88'S LEGISLATIVE HISTORY To the best of my knowledge, s. 88 was unprecedented. I know of no other statutory provision in federal law that says expressly that provincial law applies, as a general rule, to a class of subjects that the constitution assigns exclusively to federal legislative authority. 11 This fact alone would give one good reason to expect s. 88 to have prompted significant public comment at the time of its introduction and to have 2000 CanLIIDocs 144 received close review and thorough debate on its way through Parliament. One would, at a minimum, have expected to find on the public record some clear explanation of the government's rationale for promoting such a measure. As far as I have been able to tell, 12 no such discussion or explanation took place. Frankly, I was startled at how little public attention s. 87 (as it then was) attracted while before Parliament; 13 still more surprising was the almost total absence of For a comprehensive list of the 1951 revisions, see Memorandum, "Proposed Amendments to the Indian Act," NAC, RG 26, vol. 71 (25 April 195 I) ("Miscellaneous re Indian Administration"). The Indian Act, S.C. 1951, c. 29. See Journals of the Senate of Canada (20 June 1951) at 401. John Leslie reports that "[t]he need to update branch field manuals and directives delayed proclamation until 4 September 1951": Leslie, supra note 3 at 237. The principal changes, of course, have been to the rules for Indian registration and band membership: see R.S.C. 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 32, s. 4. IO What had been s. 87 became s. 88 in the 1970 federal statute revision. See Indian Act, R.S.C. 1970, C. 1-6. II Section 91 of the Constitution Act, /867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Viet., c. 3 [hereinafter Constitution Act, /867] confers on the federal Parliament exclusive legislative authority over twenty-nine enumerated classes of subjects, including "Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians" (s.

Load more